Wikipedia

User:Iazyges/Historiography of the Gallic Empire

< User:Iazyges

Historiography edit

Contemporary sources edit

The most reliable contemporary sources of the Gallic Empire, according to Jerome Mairat, are Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, although they are brief and believed to rely upon the hypothetical lost Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte. Zosimus and Zonaras both reveal key information regarding the Gallic Empire in short sentences, relying upon the mostly lost works of Dexippus. The Historia Augusta gives a wealth of details, but is generally unreliable.[1]


Zonaras, a late Byzantine chronicler gives key information regarding Postumus' early reign, based upon the works of Syncellus, whose works were themselves based on Dexippus.[2]

Modern sources edit

The Historiography of the Gallic Empire is muddled by lack of sources, as even the chronology of the recognized Roman Emperors is hard to construct in the period, due to a large number of revolts across the Roman Empire.[3]

According to Lafaurie, it is possible to establish a relative chronology of Gallic emperors from coin hoards,[3][4] but not an absolute one, as many of the coins are not dated.[3]

Most scholars of the early 20th century attributed the founding of the Gallic Empire to 258/259, and its collapse to 273/274, however with the works of Alföldi Andreas Alföldi, Postumus' revolt has been dated to 259/260.[5]

The historiography of the Roman Empire during this period relies on chronological sequences of events, [6]

Lafaurie concludes the revolt of Postumus, and death of Saloninus, to 260, and Tetricus surrender to Aurelian in 274.[5]

Much of the evaluation of the contemporary sources comes from the investigation of J. F. Drinkwater.[7][8]

Historiography by emperor edit

Postumus edit

Eutropius and Orosius give Postumus a reign of 10 years, which appears to be confirmed by numismatics, as well as an inscription, contradicting the Augustan Histories, which state he reigned seven years.[7][9] Alföldi demonstrates that Aureolus, a general under Emperor Gallienus, revolted in Milan and minted coins in the name of Postumus;[10][11] because Gallienus was killed while besieging Milan in c. August 268, and Claudius II was thence named emperor, Zonaras testifies that Postumus ruled during the beginning of Claudius' reign, proving that Postumus must have lived past mid-268, thereby also establishing that Postumus could not have acceded the throne before 258.[10][12][13] The Epitome de Caesaribus establishes a link between the victory of Claudius at the Battle of Lake Benacus in late 268 and the accession of Victorinus; several scholars, such as Elmer, date Victorinus' accession to 268, this would imply that Postumus revolted in 259.[10] Konig and Drinkwater argue that a term used in the Epitome de Caesaribus relegates the time of the battle to merely some point within the reign of Claudius, thereby allowing a later accession date for Victorinus.[14][15][16]

An issue with the dating of Postumus' reign comes from the notion that, like the eastern rebellions of the Roman Empire, and the usurpations of Macrianus and Quietus, the rebellion of Postumus would follow the capture of Valerian by Shapur;[17][18] while the exact date of this event is unknown, scholarly consensus dates it to 260.[17][19][20] A factor entered into the argument is the Liber Pontificalis gives the ordination sate of Pope Dionysius as 22 July 259, arguing that Valerian, who fervently suppressed Christianity, must have already been captured by then;[17] however König argues that 22 July 259 was a Friday, whereas it was customary that a pope is ordained on a Sunday, which 22 July 260 falls upon.[17][21]

Elmer suggests that Postumus rebelled in 259, but, based upon coins still minted in Saloninus' name in Egypt during this period, something unlikely to continue after the news of the death of Valerian, the senior emperor, dates Postumus' siege of Cologne and the murder of Saloninus to 260.[17][22] Lafaurie argues that Zosimus' narrative of the siege of Cologne suggest that it was brief, which would imply that both events took place in 259.[17][23]

Postumus' rebellion is described in detail by Zonaras.[24]

Based upon an inscription dated 11 September discovered in Augsburg, Bakker and Lavagne connect Zonaras' narrative of Postumus' victory over barbarians from across the Rhine and subsequent revolt against Saloninus with the inscriptions mention of a victory over the "Senones or Juthungi" on 24/25 April, in the year of Postumus' consulship; suggesting that Postumus must have been proclaimed emperor between 24/25 April and 11 September of 260, in order to line up with the date of the Battle of Milan.[25][26][27] König mentions that it is not specified what year of consulship the battle took place, potentially dating it forward, and making it unrelated to the revolt of Postumus.[28][29]

Based on coinage, Schulte places Postumus' death at February/March 269, and Gricourt and Hollard place it in late February or early March 269.[30][31][32]

Postumus' death is best dated to first half of 269, and ambitiously to spring of 269.[33]

Laelianus edit

Aurelius Victor and Eutropius state that Laelianus' revolt took place at the end of the reign of Postumus, that it was suppressed, but that Postumus was soon killed by his own men. Coins minted of Laelinus are quite rare, suggesting he wielded control of the mint for a short period.[7]

There are no recorded inscriptions of Laelianus, however, an inscription from Krefeld-Gellep, 10 miles north of Cologne, may refer to a "public enemy" of Postumus.[7][34]

Marius edit

Eutropius and the Augustan Histories both give Marius a reign of two to three days,[7] however, the coinage of his reign would seem to indicate a much longer reign. André Chastagnol suggest an explanation for this is that both Eutropius and the Augustan Histories misunderstand their source, Aurelius Victor's Liber de Caesaribus, and had interpreted a statement that Victorinus was chosen to succeed Marius two days after he was murdered as stating that he was murdered two days into his reign, whereupon Victorinus was installed.[35][36] F. Paschoud argues that the error originated in the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte, which Victor drew from.[37][38]

There are no inscriptions for Marius' reign.[38]

Konig and Drinkwater conjecture that Marius reigned for four months,[38][39][40] Weiser, comparing the coin hoards of emperors with known reigns to that of Marius, suggests he reigned 70 days.[38][41]

While the estimates are inexact, they suggest a reign of a few months.[38]

Victorinus edit

The evidence for Victorinus is more available, with a mosaic in Trier giving his full name, and revealing he was either a Praetorian tribune or prefect under Postumus,[42][43] and an inscription from Spain recording that he was co-consul with Postumus during his fourth consulship.[42][44] While more inscriptions exist for Victorinus, they do not give dates of his reign, providing little chronological value.[42][45] Both Victor and Eutropius give Victorinus a reign of two years before his death.[42]

Domitianus II edit

Domitianus II was relatively unknown before the discovery of two of his coins,[33][46][47] with Zosimus referencing only that he rebelled, giving no precise date or region to his rebellion.[33] Investigation of the coins reveals definitely that they came from a Gallic mint between 269 and 274, likely between the reigns of Victorinus and Tectricus I.[33][48] This seems to fit with sources which state that Tetricus faced revolts when he acceded the throne.[33]

Tetricus I edit

Tetricus II edit

Dating of Tetricus II's time as caesar is difficult, but his accession is usually placed in 273, following Elmer and Lafaurie's investigations based upon numismatic evidence. [49][50][51] This is contradicted by an inscription in Béziers which describes Tetricus II as caesar in the second year of his father's tribunician powers, which would be in 272.[49][52][51][53] König suggests that Tetricus II was only nominally raised in 272, but gained full powers in 273, explaining why coinage did not appear until then,[49][54] with Drinkwater agrees with.[55] Callu suggests that this portion of the inscription may actually refer to Tetricus I, although Mairat has questioned this, as the inscription of his father is similarly placed in the inscription.[49][56]

References edit

  1. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 6–7.
  2. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 14–15.
  3. ^ a b c Mairat 2014, p. 5.
  4. ^ Lafaurie 1964, pp. 120–7.
  5. ^ a b Mairat 2014, p. 6.
  6. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 5–6.
  7. ^ a b c d e Mairat 2014, p. 7.
  8. ^ Drinkwater 1987, pp. 45–91.
  9. ^ König 1981, p. 200.
  10. ^ a b c Mairat 2014, p. 11.
  11. ^ Alföldi 1928, pp. 76–8.
  12. ^ Rea 1972, pp. 17–24.
  13. ^ Lafaurie 1975, pp. 986–1000.
  14. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 11–12.
  15. ^ König 1981, pp. 63–4.
  16. ^ Drinkwater 1987, pp. 72–3.
  17. ^ a b c d e f Mairat 2014, p. 12.
  18. ^ Drinkwater 1987, p. 88.
  19. ^ Goltz & Hartmann 2008, pp. 235–84.
  20. ^ Kienast 1996, pp. 214–17.
  21. ^ König 1981, pp. 27–31.
  22. ^ Elmer 1941, p. 17.
  23. ^ Lafaurie 1975, p. 857.
  24. ^ Mairat 2014, p. 13.
  25. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 15–16.
  26. ^ Bakker 1993.
  27. ^ Lavagne 1994.
  28. ^ Mairat 2014, p. 16.
  29. ^ König 1997, pp. 346–8.
  30. ^ Mairat 2014, p. 17.
  31. ^ Schulte, pp. 44–5.
  32. ^ Gricourt & Hollard 2010, pp. 166–183.
  33. ^ a b c d e Mairat 2014, p. 18.
  34. ^ Eck 2004, pp. 145–153.
  35. ^ Mairat 2014, pp. 7–8.
  36. ^ Chastagnol 1974, pp. 51–8.
  37. ^ Paschoud 2011, pp. 78–9.
  38. ^ a b c d e Mairat 2014, p. 8.
  39. ^ König 1981, p. 140.
  40. ^ Drinkwater 1987, p. 178.
  41. ^ Weiser 2003, pp. 501–2.
  42. ^ a b c d Mairat 2014, p. 9.
  43. ^ König 1981, p. 209.
  44. ^ König 1981, p. 204.
  45. ^ König 1981, pp. 209–23.
  46. ^ Estiot & Salaün 2004.
  47. ^ Weder 1997, pp. 129–31.
  48. ^ Estiot & Salaün 2004, pp. 214–7.
  49. ^ a b c d Mairat 2014, p. 19.
  50. ^ Elmer 1941, p. 80.
  51. ^ a b Lafaurie 1975, pp. 943–4.
  52. ^ Elmer 1941, p. 75.
  53. ^ Kienast 1996, pp. 245–6.
  54. ^ König 1981, pp. 166–7.
  55. ^ Drinkwater 1987, pp. 107, 124, 186–7.
  56. ^ Callu 1989, p. 369.

Bibliography edit

  • Drinkwater, J. F. (1987). The Gallic Empire: Separatism and Continuity in the North-Western Provinces of the Roman Empire A.D. 260-274. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden. ISBN 978-3515048064.
  • König, Ingemar (1997). Die Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg (in German). Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 46. JSTOR 4436475.
  • König, Ingemar (1981). Die gallischen Usurpatoren von Postumus bis Tetricus (in German). Munich: Beck. ISBN 978-3406048012.
  • Lafaurie, Jean (1964). La chronologie des empereurs gaulois (in French). Revue Numismatique. doi:10.3406/numi.1964.1093.
  • Lafaurie, Jean (1975). L’Empire gaulois. Apport de la numismatique (in French). Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110830880-026.
  • Mairat, Jerome (2014). The Coinage of the Gallic Empire. Oxford, Oxfordshire: University of Oxford Press. OCLC 908406894.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Iazyges/Historiography_of_the_Gallic_Empire&oldid=1043659270"